Do You Trust Your Federal Government?

[not sure]

Do I trust my federal government? No since we don't have a federation in my country.
Do I trust our government? No. I can't make up my mind who are worse the politicians or the civil servants. That's a lie. The civil servants are worse easily but, they pass under the radar. We'll be downsizing them soon. Hallelujah. There is a God!

 

[bamf]

No, I don't which is why I think they should constantly be kept in check by public investigations into internal matters. A stateless society would be my ideal future, where they only forms of authority would be legitimate ones created through direct democracy, and controlled by citizen assemblies.

 

[Galileo]

I actually have a lot of trust and faith in our current Australian government, much more than I had with the liberals who were in power for years and years before them.
but finally I feel that more money is going where it should, ie public education and healthcare and the rural areas of Australia and the environment and so on, and a lot less is going into the military and private education. I always despised the liberals for putting so much of our money into private education.

 

[bickelz]

A stateless society would be my ideal future, where they only forms of authority would be legitimate ones created through direct democracy, and controlled by citizen assemblies.

Sounds like a pure form of democracy and bud, those don't work. Direct democracy without some sort of organization or party system is chaos unless you're dealing with five people.

Direct democracies are dangerous. Without a check of power, simple majorities can get rid of minority rights.

 

[bamf]

Sounds like a pure form of democracy and bud, those don't work. Direct democracy without some sort of organization or party system is chaos unless you're dealing with five people.

Direct democracies are dangerous. Without a check of power, simple majorities can get rid of minority rights.

No no no, you've got me wrong. What I meant by that was authority in places such as work, and having these decisions decided on direct democracy. A stateless society is just that, stateless. Majorities and minorities do not matter if voting on things does not occur for a state does not exist.

 

[bickelz]

No no no, you've got me wrong. What I meant by that was authority in places such as work, and having these decisions decided on direct democracy. A stateless society is just that, stateless. Majorities and minorities do not matter if voting on things does not occur for a state does not exist.

Well there is a problem with this model here, you're still using democracy even if it is rarely and even if it is stateless. Majorities and minorities are at work even if there is no state, especially if there is voting. Unless it's a commune, there's no real thing as "collective interest". Everyone has their own self interest and it's best when they're left to pursue them because it leads to higher productivity.

How for would the voting go? What would be voted on? What are the rules for voting? Even if you say there is no state, there probably is one on some sort of level. Anarchy, believe it or not, is probably the hardest thing to maintain because humans naturally congregate and pick a leader or that leader rises up. It's like this with other creatures too.

 

[bamf]

Well there is a problem with this model here, you're still using democracy even if it is rarely and even if it is stateless. Majorities and minorities are at work even if there is no state, especially if there is voting. Unless it's a commune, there's no real thing as "collective interest". Everyone has their own self interest and it's best when they're left to pursue them because it leads to higher productivity.

How for would the voting go? What would be voted on? What are the rules for voting? Even if you say there is no state, there probably is one on some sort of level. Anarchy, believe it or not, is probably the hardest thing to maintain because humans naturally congregate and pick a leader or that leader rises up. It's like this with other creatures too.

Obviously they would exist in the work place, but it would be a legitimate form of authority (the direct democracy that is in place) because of free association. When the people collectively own the means of production, the profit of the business is at its core a collective interest. The better the business does, the better for the individuals involved. Self interest exists, but can only be achieved through collective action and thought.

Anyways, the system of our world isn't working for billions of people in it, and like I said, this is my dream world. The best part about it being a dream world is I get to imagine it exists and that it's flawless.

 

[Faye]

@Dragon Not sure if you were aiming this at me but I'll answer it as if you did anyways.

First off, I wanted to open up the discussion to people not from the states so "central" government is a more appropriate wording.

As to answer the question with my opinion, I think not. When Madison wrote the constitution, he wanted a large republic so that there was diversity. Each faction would fight each other in government for their own self-interests. The more diverse the population you have, the more the self interests will "cross-cut" of check each other, creating gridlock.

I'll bet people don't like gridlock but the thing is that it makes the country stable. With smaller, more homogenous republics (like the Anti-Federalists wanted), you would have tyrannical majorities because of the lack of these factions.

This type of government is called pluralism and works best in larger governments.

So, no I wasn't implying I believe states can do better, just wondering.

[MENTION]
bicklez[/MENTION]

Well, I can't answer the question from both a U.S. and a non-issue perspective and give any meaningful answer because the US has a federal system (there are over 90,000 governments in the US) while other states don't necessarily have a federal system. So the question for a U.S. citizen becomes whether they prefer state governments or smaller, local governments better or whether they prefer the federal government, but that is not the case from a non-US perspective.

Also, you're not thinking of The Constitution when you reference James Madison- that was his contribution in Federalist #10, which is a work of rhetoric and theory at best in my opinion. The U.S. likes to pretend that it is pluralistic, but we have a rigid two party system that, from the perspective of outsiders, often looks and behaves like a one-party system.

 

[Galileo]

Direct democracies are dangerous. Without a check of power, simple majorities can get rid of minority rights.

Switzerland is pretty much a direct democracy and I don't see them having these problems....
they have the best living standards in the world.

 

[Nixie]

Technically, I may or may not work for the government....I can neither confirm nor deny

Edit: Oh yea, I would also like to point out that I am Indian so yea, that didn't work out too well for my people with that whole genocidal policy and whatnot enacted against the People.

 

[the]

Only I can best represent myself. Even then I wouldn't trust a government that allowed me to get elected.

 

[bickelz]

The U.S. likes to pretend that it is pluralistic, but we have a rigid two party system that, from the perspective of outsiders, often looks and behaves like a one-party system.

Well as far as party systems go, we're not pluralistic but pluralism can have to do with interest groups influencing government. That's what I'm talking about.

I think you talked about the Federalist papers. That's where Madison laid out his arguments but their manifestations show up in the constitution.